4.3 Review

Through a Glass Darkly: Advances in Understanding Breast Cancer Biology, 2000-2010

期刊

CLINICAL BREAST CANCER
卷 10, 期 3, 页码 188-195

出版社

CIG MEDIA GROUP, LP
DOI: 10.3816/CBC.2010.n.026

关键词

Basal-like; BRCA; Claudin-low; HER2; Luminal; PARP

类别

资金

  1. Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH
  2. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
  3. Genentech, Inc.
  4. GlaxoSmithKline
  5. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Our understanding of breast cancer as a clinical and biologic entity has been gaining granularity for several decades; in particular, the importance of hormone receptors and HER2 were realized long ago and have served as the impetus for therapeutic agents that have improved the cure rate of estrogen receptor-positive and HER2-positive breast cancer and the lives of thousands of women. The past decade brought even more understanding of the complexity of breast cancer biology through the development and clinical applications of array-based technologies for discovery and prognostication. We now realize that there are at least 5 intrinsic subtypes within breast cancer, at least one of which-the basal-like-currently lacks targeted therapies and is the most pressing therapeutic challenge for the next decade. We have several validated prognostic profiles that allow increased thoughtfulness in adjuvant decision making. With this understanding also comes the recognition that if breast cancer represents several biologically distinct entities, then breast cancer risk assessment and treatment must take this heterogeneity into account, which complicates trial design and interpretation. Despite therapeutic advances and the development of a number of targeted agents against hormone receptor signaling, HER2, and angiogenesis, we have significant challenges to overcome. These include the need for more tissue-based studies to allow us to understand the mechanisms of sensitivity and resistance within and across subtypes, and the need to revisit risk and prevention by subtype.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据